X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

There will be no do-over for State Street Bank in an $89.75 million ERISA class action settlement it agreed to in June. On Wednesday, despite the bank’s attempt to renege on the deal, Manhattan federal district court judge Richard Holwell granted preliminary approval to the settlement Wednesday. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann filed the class action complaint in 2007, alleging that State Street breached its fiduciary duty when it made reckless investments in subprime mortgages. On June 25 of this year, the bank received a Wells notice from the Securities and Exchange Commission, which was also engaged in an investigation of its subprime investments. The next day State Street agreed to settle the ERISA class action. But when plaintiffs’ lawyers moved for preliminary approval of the $89.75 million deal, the bank’s lawyers at Ropes & Gray filed an objection, arguing that State Street’s ongoing negotiations with the SEC make it impossible to determine the fairness of the settlement. State Street tried to persuade Judge Howell, for instance, that class members might receive compensation from a potential settlement between the bank and the SEC — and any such SEC settlement, State Street noted, wouldn’t involve plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees. Ropes & Gray asked the judge to defer preliminary approval of the ERISA settlement until the SEC case is resolved. Judge Holwell said no. “The ERISA settlement is, as plaintiffs point out, a bird in the hand,” he wrote, concluding that it was premature to predict what class members might recover in a possible SEC settlement. He also seemed skeptical of State Street’s concern for the class members it allegedly harmed. “Notwithstanding State Street’s laudable efforts to protect the interests of the ERISA plans,” he wrote, “the ongoing SEC negotiations provide no basis for the denial or postponement or preliminary approval.” Neither State Street counsel Harvey Wolkoff of Ropes & Gray nor plaintiffs’ lawyer William Fredericks of Bernstein Litowitz was immediately available for comment.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2019 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.